I’ve been reading old material about Carl Stokes, in preparation for a panel session at Cleveland State University on June 19.  (Editor's note... click here for more event info).

Of course, it’s a momentous time to think about the achievement in 1967 of Stokes when he was elected the first black mayor of a major American city.

There is a direct line from Stokes to the nomination of Barack Obama as the first black Presidential candidate of a major national party.  Stokes blazed the trail when he broke the political strictures on race in elective politics.  His election in 1967, after a near miss in 1965, opened the way for others to succeed as black political candidates.  Now, amazingly, we have a black candidate as the Democratic standard bearer.  History has caught up with Carl Stokes.

I wrote in September 1967, before the Democratic mayoral primary, in the Wall Street Journal...

“His candidacy may well be taken as a test of the viability of traditional political processes for the Negro.  Around the country, Negroes are watching carefully the outcome of the Cleveland and Gary, Ind. elections.  In Gary, Richard G. Hatcher, a Negro, won the Democratic primary but has been denied party financial support.  [Of course, Negro was still used as a term to identify African-Americans.]

“The Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Democratic Party has shown similar stubbornness… denying Mr. Stokes permission to speak at party functions while allowing the privilege to Frank P. Celeste, the third primary candidate and a Caucasian.”

Time, however, wasn’t on the side of the Cuyahoga Democratic Party.  It was running out.

Despite today’s severe problems, a look back at 1967 Cleveland hardly makes the good ole days seem so good.  What strikes me is that the dire conditions of American cities and the Vietnam War then compares to the grim economic situation and the Iraqi War today.  Our priorities are warped again... or maybe still.

In the article “Cleveland: Recipe for Violence,” in the Nation Magazine, June 1967, I wrote with Case-Western Reserve University professor Murray Gruber...

“The United States is the only Western democracy in which economic and racial problems produce riots in major cities… Cleveland points up most clearly the inevitability of violent rebellion when peaceful change is aborted.”

Some of Cleveland's problems were outlined...

    -  Between 1960-65 poverty among families increased in every Negro planning area and median income slipped.

    -  In Hough, median income skidded from $4,732 to $3,966 and two other heavily populated non-white areas had lower median income than Hough.  

    -  In the building trades, there were 13 blacks among 11,500 workers in five major construction trades.  And only 43 blacks were among the 1,350 apprentice trainees in federal programs.

    -  Cleveland’s urban renewal program was so bad that federal funds were cut off.  A federal official told me that Cleveland was his department’s Vietnam - "we’d like to get out, but we don’t know how."

    -  In 1966, the U. S. Civil Rights Commission “ripped away Cleveland’s carefully nurtured façade of social progress.”  Hearings gave the ghetto a chance to speak, and even the ghetto was shocked by the cumulative findings.

The situation in Cleveland in 1967 demanded change.  Now, after eight years of the bungling Bush administration, the need for change seems irresistible.

Stokes was an amazing political candidate.  I’d say he had more personal charisma than Obama has.  He had a charm and coolness, as does Obama, but his mannerisms and flair fit the hipness of the Sixties.  Few could match Stokes’ Hollywood good looks.

I was drawn to Cleveland in the mid-1960s because of its urban problems. The notoriety of its troubles was broadcast in national media.

Cleveland was in many ways a center for student activism, war resistance and black militancy.

Cleveland actually became a hotbed of both urban and anti-war protests during this period.  Students for Democratic Society sent organizing teams to two cities – Newark, N. J. and Cleveland.  Anti-war activities here had a high profile with by Dr. Benjamin Spock and Sidney Peck, both at Case Western Reserve University and both co-chairs of the National Mobilization movement against the Vietnam War along with others.

What strikes me as similar now with then, however, is the craving for change, for a break with the past.  It dominates public thought and feeling today as it did in 1967.  A tremendous desire existed - ready to break for the right person - to cast off old divisions, particularly of race, and set a new course.  Stokes excited and help fulfill that passion as has Obama this year.  They both inspired the young.  They both employed hope as a spur.

There is a sense, I believe, among many that the center now as then is falling apart, that our leadership is taking us not only where we don’t want to go but toward disaster.

Cleveland then was a divided city just as America now is a divided nation.  There are yearnings to return to the simpler past but strong desire to beat a new path.  There was and is a strong longing to be done with those divisions in our society.

In Cleveland, there were undetermined forces at work ready to be unleashed. It needed a leader.  It found one.  Can we do it again?

Stokes, as Obama, was an organizer.  He organized the near perfect campaign in 1967, much as Obama has been able to do against great odds this year.

Even as Stokes was ready to leave politics, he devised a mechanism to maintain black political power - the 21st District Caucus (his brother Louis held the congressional seat).  By force of his personal power, Stokes made the 21st District Caucus the city’s black political power base and balanced it against the local Democratic Party, which remained a base for white politicians.

I’m not sure Stokes would have appreciated Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, now the leader of the same Congressional District, using her power to back Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Stokes, I’m sure, would have delighted in the possibility of a black candidate winning the Democratic nomination for President.

He would have considered the backing of a white candidate against a black candidate an unsettling setback of the gains he helped to create.

Race still plays an ugly part of our politics.  Stokes didn’t change that.  Maybe Obama has a better chance.  Let’s hope so, for all our sakes.